ILNews

Successful Durham appeal unlikely, outside lawyers say

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The co-owners of Fair Finance Co. who were sentenced Friday on federal fraud charges plan to appeal their convictions, lawyers for the two men say.

But a couple of veteran criminal defense attorneys who tracked the trial of Tim Durham and James Cochran, along with company chief financial officer Rick Snow, say a successful appeal is an extreme long shot.

“If I was involved in that appeal, the last thing that I would do is overstate any hope to the family,” Indianapolis lawyer Robert Hammerle said.
 
Durham received a 50-year sentence and Cochran a 25-year sentence from Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for defrauding Ohio investors of $250 million. Snow was sentenced to 10 years. Snow’s lawyer, Jeffrey Baldwin, couldn't be reached Monday morning to see if he plans an appeal.

A federal jury in June found Durham guilty on all 12 felony fraud charges stemming from the collapse of Akron, Ohio-based Fair. Durham co-owned the firm with Cochran, who was convicted of eight of 12 felony charges. Snow was convicted on five of 12 counts.

The lengths of their sentences are much shorter than what the government had recommended — 225 years for Durham, 145 years for Cochran and 85 years for Snow.

Following Durham’s sentencing Friday, his lawyer, John Tompkins, said he planned to appeal the conviction to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. A notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of sentencing.

Tompkins didn’t return a phone call Monday morning seeking further comment on what legal argument he might use to get Durham’s conviction reversed.

But Friday, he said, “anything that is likely to result in dying in prison can’t be described as a good result.”

Reached by phone Monday morning, Cochran’s lawyer, Joseph Cleary, said he, too, planned to appeal his client’s conviction, though he declined to specify on what grounds.

Cleary did not represent Cochran during his conviction and was appointed as a public defender in late September.

“What the issues in the appeal will be, at this point, I can’t tell you,” Cleary said.

Marty Solomon, a veteran criminal defense lawyer in Indianapolis who has argued several cases in front of 7th Circuit judges, said lawyers mostly cite lack of evidence or judicial error when appealing.

But in the case of Durham and Cochran, the chances of success are slim, said Solomon, who described the evidence as “powerful” and “overwhelming.”

“I would say that Durham and his co-defendants probably have a better chance of hitting a $500 million lottery than succeeding on appeal,” he said.   

Barring successful appeals, Durham, 50, likely will spend the rest of his life in prison and Cochran, 57, most of his remaining years.

Unlike state prisoners, federal inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentences. Durham would need to live to 93 to survive his sentence, and Cochran, to 78. Snow is 49 years old and could be out in 8-1/2 years.

Solomon said Magnus-Stinson likely gave Durham 50 years — basically a life sentence — instead of the recommended 225 years to avoid an appeal on the sentence. Most all federal appeals argue the conviction and not the sentence, he said.

“I never thought of her as a lenient judge,” said Solomon, who appeared before her during her time as a criminal court judge in Marion Superior Court. “So I knew right away that she would be strict with Durham.”

Federal prosecutors sought the stiffer sentences, taking into account 5,122 victims and a loss of $250 million, to punish Durham and Cochran for operating Fair as a Ponzi scheme.

Before his sentencing, Durham said he read many of the letters from victims and regretted that the company failed. He also defended Cochran and Snow but failed to offer an apology.

Cochran, though, sobbed while telling investors how remorseful he was over their losses.

“One thing I know for sure is that I regret what happened to all the investors,” he said. “I’m heartbroken. I never intended for this to happen.”

U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett called Durham’s 50-year sentence “a significant price that he deserves.”

The victims "lost their peace of mind, their trust in others, and their faith in goodness and mercy," Hogsett said in a prepared statement. "These are things they will never get back. What Tim Durham and his associates destroyed through self-indulgence was irreplaceable, and those people may never be made whole."

All of IBJ's coverage of Tim Durham and Fair Finance can be found here. The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT